Troopers are importing a lot of "troopers" from the lower 48. Should be a hard/fast rule that troopers have a minimum amount of time in AK before becoming a trooper. Damn tv show..
The reason for importing them is that they can't find enough people in the State that can pass all of the entrance requirements.
I agree about the TV show.
The rules used to be that you had to be assigned to an urban post, Anchorage, Juneau, or Fairbanks for a minimum of two years after FTO before you could even think about being transferred anywhere else. When the State got that rule changed (against the Troopers Union protests) in the late '90's, you started seeing guys that did not know how to talk to people and treat people firmly but with dignity, being put out in the Bush.
When your back up maybe days away, you learn to do two things really well. You learn how to talk WITH people and you learned how to fight. The talking part eliminated a lot of the fighting part.
Ed
That sentence was a truism I learned early on in my career. You can even reduce it to just leaving a person with their dignity averts 99% of the complaints. I worked with guys that felt like John Q. Public could have his dignity IF the LEO decided he could. Bad, bad move. That starts more fights and generates more complaints than anything else. If the contact is a turd, he knows he's a turd, you know he's a turd, by random people passing by watching may not know it. Leave them with their dignity if at all possible and the job gets A LOT easier.
The incident of this thread will play out as it will play out, but the highlighted areas of these two posts really needs repeating.
Human nature is human nature. We humans will give up a lot and suffer a lot but don't try to take away our pride or dignity. I've seen too many videos where the police try to "control" the situation come hell or high water - screaming at the person in question over and over - and agitating the situation to the point of violence when they could have used some interpersonal skills to calm down the situation.
It probably sounds trite, but "How to Win Friends and Influence People" should probably be as much required reading for police as the current book of statutes.
Yes, I know some situations call for control - someone about to shoot someone else, for instance - but treating a person with dignity and respect whether they deserve it or not would go a long, long way to stopping trouble before it starts. There would also be a lot fewer youtube videos of this nature...
Gunnery, gunnery, gunnery. Hit the target, all else is twaddle!
The post above mentions kidnapping as have a few others. Don't know if it goes that far, but at what point does an officer need to inform the person what they are being arrested for? I have never been arrested so I don't know these things. Just curious if they are supposed to tell you as they are cuffing you or can it wait until they get to the station or what.
The post above mentions kidnapping as have a few others. Don't know if it goes that far, but at what point does an officer need to inform the person what they are being arrested for? I have never been arrested so I don't know these things. Just curious if they are supposed to tell you as they are cuffing you or can it wait until they get to the station or what.
I don't know about Alaska State law. In Texas, it is not required by statute, but is required by most Department's policy. In reference to "kidnapping", that is foolish. False arrest is the term.
The only thing worse than a liberal is a liberal that thinks they're a conservative.
Miranda only applies to a custodial interrogation (i.e., she has to be under arrest or its functional equivalent before Miranda warnings are required prior to interogation).
She was cuffed, which means it was a custodian situation, but since they did not ask here any questions after they cuffed her, that's why the Miranda question is irrelevant.
Of course that still doesn't change the fact that they Assulted her, kidnapped her, and knowingly and intentionally charged her with a crime she did not commit.
Nailed it.
Communists: I still hate them even after they changed their name to "liberals". ____________________
My boss asked why I wasn't working. I told him I was being a democrat for Halloween.
The post above mentions kidnapping as have a few others. Don't know if it goes that far, but at what point does an officer need to inform the person what they are being arrested for? I have never been arrested so I don't know these things. Just curious if they are supposed to tell you as they are cuffing you or can it wait until they get to the station or what.
I don't know about Alaska State law. In Texas, it is not required by statute, but is required by most Department's policy.
I am reading your post as most department policies want you to inform the person as they are being arrested and not at a later point. Right?
Either way, it seems to me the best policy is not to make it any worse by resisting and mouthing off. Just don't say a damn thing until your lawyer shows up. Period.
In most cases you would be correct, especially if you are guilty. On the other hand, innocent people can not make their situation worse by telling the truth. And yes, Departments usually require that they tell a person what they are being charged with, if asked.
The only thing worse than a liberal is a liberal that thinks they're a conservative.
Just curious. Not trying to bust your balls. I have a lot of respect for the men in blue and there were some interesting points brought up in the video that I had never considered.
It seems there is so much room and opportunity for error even when an innocent person tells their story. It drove home the message to me that there is plenty of time to tell that story with an attorney present.
Some things threw me. Here if we are invited in a residence and see paraphernalia it's considered an open view search and its an arrest. Had that video been here she would have gone on the possession charge. Not to mention the screaming would have been dis-con. However. As Ed pointed out to me on the phone. It is entirely legal to have up to four ounces of pot in your residence in Alaska. And you cannot be arrested for disorderly conduct in your home in Alaska. Thought that was interesting how much state statutes differ.
But I bet we are the only county in the nation where it is illegal to wash a donkey inside on Sundays
The government plans these shootings by targeting kids from kindergarten that the government thinks they can control with drugs until the appropriate time--DerbyDude
Whatever. Tell the oompa loompa's hey for me. [/quote]. LtPPowell
Just curious. Not trying to bust your balls. I have a lot of respect for the men in blue and there were some interesting points brought up in the video that I had never considered.
It seems there is so much room and opportunity for error even when an innocent person tells their story. It drove home the message to me that there is plenty of time to tell that story with an attorney present.
Seeking legal counsel is always the best way to go if you are guilty of a crime. I suppose if the inconvenience and price of "lawyering up" every time a person is approached is not an issue, than more power to them. Also, you gotta remember this...cops could care less, but attorneys have a vested interest in their retention.
The only thing worse than a liberal is a liberal that thinks they're a conservative.
Just curious. Not trying to bust your balls. I have a lot of respect for the men in blue and there were some interesting points brought up in the video that I had never considered.
It seems there is so much room and opportunity for error even when an innocent person tells their story. It drove home the message to me that there is plenty of time to tell that story with an attorney present.
Seeking legal counsel is always the best way to go if you are guilty of a crime. I suppose if the inconvenience and price of "lawyering up" every time a person is approached is not an issue, than more power to them.
No, its the best way to go period. Never underestimate the ability of some power-hungry prosecutor (or cop) to twist innocence into guilt.
Communists: I still hate them even after they changed their name to "liberals". ____________________
My boss asked why I wasn't working. I told him I was being a democrat for Halloween.
It seems to me to be self fulfilling. If one is approached by an officer in general terms is one thing. I have conversations with them on a regular basis. They (and you) are just people. Why not be courteous.
But if one detains me then there is no upside of answering their questions. Only equal position or downside. It is then up to the officer to determine if it goes any further. They can either let me go or take me in. Either way I haven't made my position any worse by keeping my mouth politely shut.
Just curious. Not trying to bust your balls. I have a lot of respect for the men in blue and there were some interesting points brought up in the video that I had never considered.
It seems there is so much room and opportunity for error even when an innocent person tells their story. It drove home the message to me that there is plenty of time to tell that story with an attorney present.
Seeking legal counsel is always the best way to go if you are guilty of a crime. I suppose if the inconvenience and price of "lawyering up" every time a person is approached is not an issue, than more power to them.
No, its the best way to go period. Never underestimate the ability of some power-hungry prosecutor (or cop) to twist innocence into guilt.
Like I said. Makes us no difference. It's your time and money.
The only thing worse than a liberal is a liberal that thinks they're a conservative.
In most cases you would be correct, especially if you are guilty. On the other hand, innocent people can not make their situation worse by telling the truth. And yes, Departments usually require that they tell a person what they are being charged with, if asked.
You are seriously naieve if you think law enforcement cannot and will not take innocence and try and transmute it into guilt.
Communists: I still hate them even after they changed their name to "liberals". ____________________
My boss asked why I wasn't working. I told him I was being a democrat for Halloween.
She wanted the last word, which was slamming the door on him when he left, he was not prepared to allow her that satisfaction, so she got arrested. People have been arrested for a lot less but then most of them did not have it on video. I think the cops are going to have to pay for not allowing her the small satisfaction of slamming the door.
That's exactly what happened, hope she gets paid accordingly!! What would you guy's figure that's worth? I'd say 50-75k?
Jed York does not own the 49ers; Russell Wilson does.
It seems to me to be self fulfilling. If one is approached by an officer in general terms is one thing. I have conversations with them on a regular basis. They (and you) are just people. Why not be courteous.
But if one detains me then there is no upside of answering their questions. Only equal position or downside. It is then up to the officer to determine if it goes any further. They can either let me go or take me in. Either way I haven't made my position any worse by keeping my mouth politely shut.
This stuff is so subjective, it's almost not worth discussing. If you matched the description of a fleeing felon and the answer of a few simple questions guaranteed your release, would you refuse?
The only thing worse than a liberal is a liberal that thinks they're a conservative.
The post above mentions kidnapping as have a few others. Don't know if it goes that far, but at what point does an officer need to inform the person what they are being arrested for? I have never been arrested so I don't know these things. Just curious if they are supposed to tell you as they are cuffing you or can it wait until they get to the station or what.
I don't know about Alaska State law. In Texas, it is not required by statute, but is required by most Department's policy. In reference to "kidnapping", that is foolish. False arrest is the term.
Alaska State Law does not require it by statute. The guiding reference is the 9th Circuit, then SCOTUS, who have said that a person must be formally charged and taken before a judge within 48 hours of arrest. That was 24 hours until the mid-90's. I don't remember the exact case, but I do remember it came out of California.
That said, AST's policy is to inform the person at the time they are taken into custody of what the initial charges will be. That is usually about the time the cuffs go on.
His silence on the charges is going to be another piece used against him. His affidavit does not mesh with the video, either. How the D.A. saw fit to file those charges is beyond me. Rookies everywhere.
Longbob, Pat is shooting straight when he said the correct term is false arrest. That, and excessive use of force go beyond state criminal courts straight to Federal court where it is known as a Title 1983 violation, which is a civil rights violation. The penalties are severe, both for the officer and the agency. Once the 1983 violation is established, it is usually a matter of how many zeroes go on the check.
Even if this Trooper walks, his credibility is shot. He will be a big ass target for every defense attorney and prosecutors will be very hesitant to file charges on any resisting, assault, or Disorderly Conduct arrest he brings in. He is now a walking liability for AST.
Ed
"Not in an open forum, where truth has less value than opinions, where all opinions are equally welcome regardless of their origins, rationale, inanity, or truth, where opinions are neither of equal value nor decisive." Ken Howell
